
.^^91 





/f^ 



E 449 
.F291 

Copy 1 THE 



SINFULNESS OF SLAVEHOLDING 



SHOWN BY APPEALS TO 



REASON AND SCRIPTURE 



BY JOHN G. FEE, 

MINISTER OF THE GOSPF.I, IN KENTUCKY. 



NEW- YORK ; 
PRESfTED RY .JOHN A. GRAY, 79 FULTON, COR. GOLD STREET. 

1851. 






SINFULNESS OF SLAVEHOLDING. 



SLAVERY SINFUL IN ITSELF 

To some of our readers this proposition may seem self-evi- 
dent, and a set argument unnecessary ; for if liberty be right, 
slavery is wrong. But when we remember that throughout 
the South, the people do not seem to realize its truth; that 
very many of the clergy maintain that it is right and sanc- 
tioned by the Bible ; and that ninety-nine hundredths of the 
Christian ministry in our land claim that it is at least toler- 
ated by the Bible ; that on the floor of that Convention* which 
met in our own Statfe last spring, to devise plans for the abo- 
lition of slavery, it was claimed, by many of the most influ- 
ential minds, that slavery is not sinful in itself; the reader 
will see that argument is necessary. If these ministers, and 
other leading minds, do not know better, they need to be con- 
vinced. If they do know better, acting as they do, they 
should be nailed to the wall ; and brief arguments should 
be put into the hands of the people, by which thus to nail 
them. 

Again, in all moral reforms, it is essentially necessary tliat 
we get hold of that greatest of all levers — conscience. This 
done, the cause will move on, surmounting all difliculties. 

* The Convention alluded to is that which met in Frankfort, Ky. 
April 25, 1849 



) 



4 SINFULNESS OF SLAVEnOLDING. 

If then we can show that slavery is sinful, and endangers 
the soul's interests of those practising it, and those winking at 
it, we may exj^ect that the people will act speedily and effi- 
ciently ; " for all that a man hath will he give for his life." 

And it is a fact happily confirming the foregoing, that the 
large mass of those in our State, now struggling for the free- 
dom of the slave, are moral and rehgious men. Conscience 
is at the bottom of the move, and conscience we need more 
fully to enlist. 

Also, as the Christian Church in our land has a controlling 
influence in modelling the public sentiment and laws of the 
land, either for good or for evil, it is all-important that her 
action should be right on this subject. And as she is de- 
signed to be the salt of the land, to purify it from its vices, 
it is high time that she was up and doing. 

It should be stated here, moreover, that it properly belongs 
to the slaveholder to prove that his course is justifiable, and 
not to anti-slavery men to prove its sinfulness. And that for 
two reasons : 1st. Slaveiy is a restriction, to say the least, and 
all restrictions in society require justification. 2d. The civil- 
ized world regard it as being wrong. 

For both these reasons, the presumption is so strong 
against slavery, that we should be jiistitied in condemning 
those who uphold it, imless they can prove it to be right. 
With strict propriety, therefore, we might confine our atten- 
tion to proving that the arguments by which they attempt to 
justify it are unsound. But in order to produce full convic- 
tion, and that conscience may be fully aroused, we shall at- 
tempt to show not only the fallacy of their arguments, but also 
the positive proof that slavery is sinful. 



SLAVERY SINFUL. 

Slavery is not mere bond-service, as that of an ap])rentice, 
or child bound to a guardian until of adult age. Nor is it, 
as Paley defines, mere " obligation to do service for another," 
as of a child to a parent up to adult age — as of one who 
contracts to serve for a certain sum, up to a given time — as of 
a citizen who, by constitutional compact, may be required to 
serve as a soldier or juror : each of these is obligation to do 
service, but not slavery. Slavery is that relation in which 



NATURAL RIGHTS, 5 

one human being is, without his or her consent, made the 
property of another or other human beings.* 

That this reUition is sinful, is manifest from the following 
considerations : 

1. Those facts and arguments proving that the reader, or 
any one human being, has a right to liberty, prove that all 
other persons, not criminals, have a right to liberty. 

The fact that one man, or race of men, may have more in- 
tellectual capacity than another man, or race of men, gives 
no just ground for enslaving the inferior ; otherwise the most 
intellectual man that exists may have a right to enslave every 
other man — white and black. 

Nor does the fact that one man has a darker skin, thicker 
hp, flatter nose, or more knappy hair than another, give a 
sufBcient and just cause why he should be enslaved ; other- 
wise he who has a fairer skin, thinner lip, sharper nose, or 
straighter hair than you or I, may have a right to enslave 
us ; and the fairest man in the world may enslave every 
other man. 

Again, bj'' common consent, as right, there are colored 
men — negroes, who, in the South as well as the North, are 
fi'ee men, having, by protection of law, personal ownershij?, 
proceeds of their labor, and other natural rights. 

Then by common consent a black skin, and all the features 
of the negro, do not of themselves constitute a reason why a 
man should be enslaved. 

Again, the larger portion of the human family are colored. 
Is the large majority to be enslaved by the minority, because 
climate and other local causes have given them a darker com- 
plexion than that of the few pale faces ?f What presumption ! 
And yet we often hear it, and that, too, in high 2)laces. 

* That only is a definition which clistiiiguishes the thing or relation 
defined, from eveiy other thing or relation. 

f The following article is found in the Millennial HaiLinger for May, 
1850, published by Alexander Campbell, Bethany, Va. : — 

"TuE Different Color of the Jews. — Although the Jew becomes 
the subject of every form of government, from the autocracy of Russia 
to the clemocracy of America, he retains his theocratic creed. Neither 
barbarism the most rude, nor civilization the most refined, has suc- 
ceeded in altering his peculiar countenance ; for in the back-woods of 
the New World, and at the court of the British sovereign, he is instant- 
ly known. Time, that changes all things else, seems to stay his rough 
hand when he approaches tlie Jew. Compare his lineaments, sculp- 
t ured in marble and cast in bronze — for the arch and medal of Titus 



6 SINFULNESS OK SLAVEHOLDING. 

2. In a state of nature, before governments are formed, 
man, universal man, owns himself — has a right to liberty. 
Now, whatever violates nature's order must be sinful. 

Noi does man lose his right to liberty by becoming a mem- 
ber of an organized society. lie has no right to barter it 
away, and society has no divine light to take it from him — 
panderers to despotism, in our own State, from a foreign 
land, to the contrary notwithstanding. [We refer to such 
men as President Shannon.] 

The province of human government is to protect — not to 
destroy man's natural rights, but more perfectly secure them 
to him, as may be shown from the best of authorities ; (which 
authorities show also that slavery is sinful.) 

The tVamers of our Dechiratiou of Independence said : 
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are 
created equal, and have certain inalienable rights ; among 
these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To secure 
these rights [not destroy them] governments are formed, 
deriving their ^ms^ powers from the consent of the governed.^'' 



still exist — with thope of the living Jew, and be convinced of his un- 
changeableness. This permanence of physiognomy is evidently trace- 
able to a supernatural cause, which prevents tlie usual modification of 
features, in order to accomplish an important object. Into this it is not 
our province now to enter, yet we cannot help remarking that the 
Jew is a witness, not of one truth, but of many truths. Marvellously 
does he illustrate the consistency of the original unity of man with 
the most extensive diversity. His features have been cast in an 
eternal mould, but his color is dependent on outward causes. JN^atural 
law is forbidden to operate on the one, but left to take its course with 
the other. A fixed physiognomy declares the unity of the people, 
while their diversity of complexion as distinctly manifests the influ- 
ence of the climate. Every shade of color clothes with its livery the 
body of the Jew, from the jet-black of the Hindoo to the ruddy white 
of the Saxon. The original inhabitant of Palestine was doubtless 
dusky-skinned and dark-haired, but the cooler sky and more temperate 
air of Poland and Germany have substituted a fair complexion and 
light hair. On the other hand, the scorching sun of India has curled 
and crisped his hair, and blackened his skin, so that his features alone 
distinguish him physically from the native Hindoo. On the Malabar 
coast of Hindostan are two colonies of Jews — an old and young colony 
— separated by color. The elder colony are black, and the younger 
(dwelling in a town called Mattacheri) comparatively fair, so as to 
have obtained the name of the ' White Jews.' The difference is 
satisfactorily accounted for by the former having been subjected to 
the influence of the climate for a much longer time than the latter." — 
Quarterly Review. 



OPINIONS OF DISTINGUISHED MEN. / 

Thus recogniziug the fact that man in a state of nature owns 
himself; and in entering society he loses not these natural 
rights, but has a right to their exercise on his own part, and 
protection of them from others. 

Blackstoue, the most distinguished writer on English law, 
and whose works are text-books in American jurisprudence, 
says, " Those rights which God and nature have established, 
and are therefore called natural rights, such as life and hberty, 
need no aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in 
every ma7i than they are ; and no human legislature has 
power to abridge or destroy them.'''' 

Again, speaking. of these natural and absolute rights, he 
says : " The primary object of law is to maintain and regulate 
these absolute rights. When, therefore, human laws or gov- 
ernments attempt to take away the natural rights of an unof- 
fending person, they violate the very end for which they were 
formed ; they attempt that wliich they have no right to do." 
Blackstone, speaking of those things intrinsically wrong, says : 
"The declaratory part of municipal law has no force or opera- 
tion at all." It is of no authority when it violates natural 
right. For, as he says : "Ijpon the law of nature and reve- 
Jation all human laws depend. And no human law should 
he suffered to contradict them ; and should any human laws 
alloiv or enjoin us to commit a violation of the laws of nature 
or of revelation, we are bound to violate human law, or else 
violate both the natural and revealed law." Every innocent 
man has a right to Hberty now, and no human law may 
deprive him of it. 

If Indians, or Africans, or any other body of men, white or 
61ack, should pass laws that the reader, with his family, should 
be held as slaves, and should actually by force of numbere 
oubjugate him, and hold his posterity after him as slaves, 
would he feel for a moment that they had a right to do it? 
No! Every man is bound to know that slavery is sinful. 

Jefferson, speaking of slavery, says: "Can the liberties 
of a nation be thought secure when we have removed the 
only firm basis — a conviction in the minds of the people that 
these liberties are the gift of God — that they are not to be 
violated but with his wrath ? Indeed, I tremble for my coun- 
try when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot 
sleep for ever; that, considering numbers, nature, and natural 
means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange 
of situation, is among possible events ; that it may become 



O .sKVF(jLNE6.-S Ob' SLAVEHOLUING. 

possible by supernatural interference. The Almighty has no 
attribute which can take sides with us in such a contest." — 
Notes on Virginia. 

Washington. — " Your pui'chase of an estate in the colony 
of Cayenne, with a view of emancipating the slaves on it, is a 
generous and noble proof of your humanity. Would to God 
a like spirit might difiuse itself generally into the minds of 
the people of this country." — Letter to La FayettQ, 10th 
May, 1786. 

And Washington emancipated all his own slaves. 

Monroe. — " We have found that this evil (slavery) has 
preyed upon the very vitals of the community, and hjis been 
prejudicial to all the States in which it has existed." — 
Speech in Virginia Convention. 

William Pinkney. — " It is really matter of astonishment 
to me, that the people of Maryland do not blush at the very 
name of freedom. Not content with exposing to the world, 
for near a century, a speaking picture of abominable oppres- 
sion, they are still ingenious to prevent the hand of generosity 
from robbing it of half its horrors." — Speech on Slavery in 
Maryland House of Delegates, 1*789. 

Patrick Henry. — "It is a debt we owe the purity of our 
religion, to show that it is at variance with that law which 
warrants slavery." — Letter to A. Benezet. 

John Randolph. — " Sir, I envy neither the head nor the 
heart of that man, from the North, who rises here to defend 
slavery from principle." — Speech in Congress, 1829. 

Thomas J. Randolph. — " It is a practice, and an increasing 
practice, in parts of Virginia, to rear slaves for market. 
How can an honorable mind, a patriot and a lover of his 
country, bear to see this Ancient Dominion converted into 
one vast menagerie, where men are reared for market like 
oxen for the shambles ?" — Speech in Virginia Legislature, 
1832. 

Henry Clay. — " I consider slavery a curse — a curse to the 
master — a wrong, a grievous tvrong to the slave. In the ab- 
stract it is all wrong, and no possible contingency can make 
it right." — Found in a Speech delivered in 1839. His latt 
letter to Mr. Pindell endorses the same statement. 

Rev. R. J. Breckenridge, of Lexington, one of the most 
respectable citizens of our State, a man of the first talents, 
and a prominent minister in the Presbyterian Church, says : 
" What is slavery as it exists among us ? We reply, it is 



OPINION IN A SLAVE STATE. 

that condition enforced by the laws of one half of the States 
of this confederacy, in which one portion of the community, 
called masters, is allowed such power over another j^ortion 
called slaves, as — 

"1. To deprive them of the entire earnings of tlieirowu 
labor, except only so much as is necessary to continue labor 
itself, by continuing healthy existence — thus committing clear 
robbery. 

" 2, To reduce them to the necessity of universal concubin- 
age, by denying to them the civil rights of marriage — thus 
breaking up the dearest relations of life, and encouraging 
universal prostitution. 

"3. To deprive them of the means and opportunities of 
moral and intellectual culture ; in many States making it a 
high penal offense to teach them to read — thus perpetuating 
whatever evil there is that proceeds from ignorance. 

"4. To set up between parents and their children an 
authority higher than the impulse of nature and the laws of 
God, which breaks up the authority of the father over his 
own offspring, and at pleasure separates the mother at a re- 
turnless distance from her child — thus abrogating the clear 
laws of nature, thus outraging all decency and justice, and 
degrading and oppressing thousands upon thousands of beings 
created like themselves in the image of the Most High God. 
This is slavery, as it is daily exhibited in every slave State." 
— African Repository, 1834. 

Again he says : 

" Out upon such folly ! The man who cannot see that 
involuntary domestic slavery, as it exists among us, is founded 
upon the principle of taking by force that which is another's, 
has simply no moral sense." 

Again, in a meeting of the citizens of Fayette county, in 

the court-house, Lexington, in the month of ,1849, 

called to consider the question of the perpetuation of slavery 
in this Commonwealth, and addressed by Heniy Clay and R. 
J. Breckenridge, on motion of the latter, the following resolu- 
tion was adopted : 

" Resolved, That hereditary, domestic slavery, as it exists 
among us, 

"1. Ls hostile to the prosperity of the Commonwealth. 

" 2. It is inconsistent with a state of sound morahty. 

" 3. It is opposed to the fundamental principles of a free 
government. 



10 sinfulness of slaveholding. 

"4. It is contrary to the rights of mankind." 

A short time previous, on the floor of the Convention 
which met in Frankfort to devise plans for the aboHtion of 
slavery, speaking of human rights, he said : "The dearest of 
all rights to man is a right to himself; and it [slavery] is the 
most atrocious of all evils." 

This the writer heard and noted at the time. And those 
who read his able address, as reported, saw similar senti- 
ments. 

The Synod of Kentucky, in that able address to the Pres- 
byterians of Kentucky, issued in 1835, said: 

" If slavery be sinful, our duty is to rid ourselves of all 
participation in the sin which it involves, whether the colo- 
nizing scheme shall prosper or fail. And that it is sinful is 
as certain as that the hght of God's truth has shone upon our 
world." 

Can human testimony make ■ the case stronger ? And it 
should be remembered that these are Southern men testify- 
ing — men who cannot be charged with not knowing what 
slavery is. 

We might add a list of statesmen and divines from other 
lands, still more numerous : but a few will suffice. 

Adam Clark, in his Commentary, says : " In heathen coun- 
tries slavery was in some sort excusable ; but among Christians 
it is an enormity and a crime, for which j^erdition has scarcely 
an adequate state of punishment." 

John Wesley, speaking of the natural rights of the slave, 
says : " Liberty is the right of every human creature, as soon 
as he breathes the air ; and no human creature can deprive 
him of that right which he derives from the law of nature." 

And in view of the fact that slavery deprives man of all his 
aatural rights, he styles it " the sum of all villauies." 

3. As the Bible is the highest authority, the standard of 
right and wrong, and the final appeal, we prove that slavery 
is sinful by its teaching. 

As Milton has suggested, in the primitive grant given to 
man, God gave him dominion over the fish of the sea, the 
birds of the air, and the beasts of the field ; but over man he 
gave not dominion — " man over man he made not lord." 

God's deliverance of the children of Israel out of the hands 
of the oppressor, in a manner so miraculous and terrific, is a 
declaration of his abhorrence of the principle of oppression, 
ioo clear ever to be misunderstood. Hence, immediately we 



ARGUMKNT FKOM IllK ULU TK.sTAMKNT. 1 1 

diidtbe inspired lawgiver warning the people " not to oppress 
the stranger" — those dwelling in the land they were about 
to take possession of, as well as all other people not Jews. 
" Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him ; for ye 
were strangers in the land of Egypt. If thou afflict them in 
anywise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their 
(;ry ; and my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the 
feword ; and your wives shall be widows, and your children 
fatherless." All men know that to enslave is to oppress. 
Afterward, when He gave more specific laws — a code for the 
whole human family, the ten commandments — in the last one, 
He guarded all of man's rights, by forbidding man to covet 
any thing which is his neighbor's. Upon this we remark : 

1. The M'ord neighbor,' as here used, means any one and 
every one of the human family. This is the primary import 
of the original Hebrew word, translated neighbor. Further, 
we know the moral law was not given to protect the rights, 
or to regulate the conduct of any one class of men towards 
another, but to protect the rights and regulate the conduct of 
ALL men. This will not be disputed. Therefore, the word 
neighbor, as here used, means tuiy one and every one of the 
human family. 

2. The moi'al law, like every other law, comes not to con- 
fer riffhts, but to lorotect rights already existing. It pre- 
supposes that man, as man, has certain rights to be guarded, 
not given by the Decalogue. 

When the Decalogue was given, the Jews had no civil 
laws to govern them. They had just come up out of Egypt, 
and were an unorganized multitude in the wilderness at the 
foot of Mount Sinai. Yet, when the Decalogue was given, 
God recognized the fact that man, as man, has natural 
rights existing prior to the giving of even the moral law 
itself, and gave the law to protect rights already existing. 

3. Among these rights is that of personal ownership, or 
liberty. For the moral law, in protecting the right of per- 
sonal security by the sixth command, the right of personal 
chastity by the seventh, the right to the proceeds of his 
labor by the eighth, and the right of character by the ninth, of 
necessity in the tenth protects the right of personal owner- 
ship ; for in this all other rights inhere, and cannot exist with- 
out it. Therefore, to take away personal ownership of an in- 
nocent man, or even to covet it, is a plain violation of the 
moral law and, say? Jobri, "th." ■'^■ransgression of the law is 



12 SINFULNESS OF SLAVEHOLDING. 

sin." Therefore, slavery is sinful, for it violates the moral 
law. 

The error of Dr. Junkin, President Shannon, and many- 
others, is in overlooking the truth that the moral law pre- 
supposes and recognizes the right of every man to own him- 
self; and was given to guard his rights, in common with 
others, from encroachment by his neighbor. And then, as- 
suming, as they do, that man has a right to rob his fellow- 
man of his liberty, and that the word servant, as used in the 
ten commandments, means slave, they come to the conclusion 
that the tenth commandment recognizes the right of the 
master to hold another human being as a slave — as property. 
What chasms between premises and conclusions I 

In the first place, as we shall show hereafter, the Hebrew 
word n3jt![ is applied to all classes of servants in the Bible, 
and the Hebrews could not, at the time the ten command- 
ments were given, have held any slaves. They were just 
emerging from the land of bondage themselves, and in no 
condition to possess involuntary servants. 

Again, even if some covetous man was then robbing his 
fellow of personal ownership, and the text forbade his neigh- 
bor to covet that slave, still this is no recognition of a mas- 
ter's right to hold another man as a slave. For if my neigh- 
bor has stolen a piece of cloth, it is wrong, a violation of the 
command, for me to covet it, though he has no right to it. 
To covet would be an injury to my own heart, and it is light 
that I should be forbidden to exercise such desires, though 
the robber's title be bad. 

The moral law, then, as we have seen, condemns slavery. 

But in the Old Testament we have not only general pre- 
cepts, condemnatory of slavery, but also many specific pre- 
cepts. 

In the chapter following that in which the Decalogue is 
found (Exod. xxi. 16), we find a statute, or precept, most 
sacredly guarding the liberty of man as man. " He that 
stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his 
hands, he shall surely be put to death." Doe? any one say 
this passage means that one riian shall not steal the servant 
or slave of another mai> ? We answer ; 

1. Then the text would have been written, "He that steal- 
eth the servant or slave of another man shall be put to death." 
It is iiot so written, byt forbids stealing any man. 

2. The IJebrew woid which is here translated stealeth, ia 



AKCa'ME.NT FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT. 13 

such as is used to designate the robbery of liberty — kidnap- 
ping. Thus, Joseph, using the same word, say?^, " I indeed 
was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews." Gen. xl. 15. 

3. Had the text been simply designed to guard the prop- 
erty tenure of the master, then the statute would have re- 
quired a property punishment as an atonement. It was a 
principle in the Jewish law, that when ■pioperty was taken, 
the thief should return an increased amount of property ; and 
if he had not property, then he was to be sold until his ser- 
vices would pay the amount. No such penalty is here affixed. 
But as the crime was that of robbing a man of his liberty, 
and as liberty was, and is, a right dear as life, the same pen- 
alty was affixed as that for taking life. 

Do you say, though the Jew might not seize a free man 
and rob him of his hberty, yet he might buy from others 
those who had been robbed of their liberty ? We answer : 
The statute as really forbade slaveholding as it did slave- 
making. Not only he that stealeth a man, but if the stolen 
man " h& found in his hands, he shall surely be put to death." 
And every pereon can see that there was consistency in this. 
Suppose Moses had passed a law forbidding horse-stealing, 
and then another allowing the Jew to buy those that they 
knew were stolen, would it not have been a glaring inconsist- 
ency, bringing a reproach upon the law and its author, in the 
eye of the w'hole world? Reader, in your haste to defend 
despotism, do not charge God with folly. 

Again, God caused another statute to be written : " Thou 
shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped 
from his master unto thee : he shall dwell with thee, even 
among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy 
gates, where it liketh him best : thou shalt not oppress him." 
Deut, xxiii. 15, 16. 

Some interpret this command as applying only to the 
slaves of foreigners. But if so, the principle is the same, and 
forbids oppression, or assisting to oppress. 

Again, that assurance might be doubly sure, God estab- 
lished not only precepts, but national customs, securing lib- 
erty to all men. " Ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and pro- 
claim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants 
thereof: it shall be a jubilee unto you; ;ind ye shall return 
every man unto his possession, and ye shall return ever\ man 
unto his family." Lev. xxv. 10. By this statute and national 
custom all the tendencies to oppression, and possibilities of 



M SINFCLNE^t^ OF SLAVKIIOLUING. 

slavery, were broken up. If a Jew or a Gentile were even 
disposed, they could not sell their service for a longer period 
than to the jubilee. Never was a nation of people more sedu- 
lously guarded against the sin of slavery. And this is just 
what, from the history of the nation, we wou-ld expect. God 
had just dehvered them from the galling yoke of oppression, 
and awfully punished the Egyptians for the sin ; and God, 
who loved his people, guarded them from a like sin and ca- 
lamity. 

Nations, however, like individuals, sometimes forget the 
pit from whence they have been digged, break their whole- 
some laws, and commit outrages on others. So did the Jews 
in after years. And then we hear God crying, by the mouth 
of his prophet : " Wo unto him that buildeth his house by 
unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong '. that useth his 
neighbor's service without wages, and giveth him not for his 
work." Jer. xxii. 13. Slavery takes from man his work, with- 
out giving him an equivalent. God forbids this elem.ent of 
slavery also. Again, we find this same people had actually 
brought into involuntary bondage their fellow^-beings. God 
declares such conduct to be contrary to his commands, and 
punishes the Jews for the sin, by sending them away into 
bondage to the Babylonians, that they might learn the sin- 
fulness of slavery. "^Therefore, thus saith the Lord : Ye have 
not hearkened unto me in proclaiming liberty, every one to 
his brother and every man to his neighbor ; behold, I pro- 
claim a liberty for you, saith the Lord, to the sword, to the 
pestilence, and to the famine ; and I will make you to be re- 
moved into all the kingdoms of the earth." Jer. xxxiv. 1*7. At 
another time we find the Jews lamenting the absence of God's 
blessing, and, hke many of tliis land, fasting and praying ; 
yet, " smiting with the fist of wickedness," persisting in the 
enslavement of their fellow-men. God withholds his blessing 
from them, and tells them that justice and mercy are far more 
estimable in his sight than these hypocritical shows, or reli- 
gious ceremonies, without a right state of heart. Eead Isaiah 
Iviii. 1-6. "Is not this the fast that I have chosen, to loose 
the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let 
the oppressed go free, and that ye break eve-ry yoke ?" No- 
thing could more clearly show God's abhorrence of the sin of 
slavery and his approval of freedom. 

Do you say these last cases cited had reference to the en- 
lavement of Jews ? We ansirer : 



ARGUMENT FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT. .& 

(1.) Doubtless God would have been as much displeased 
had the Jews enslaved any other people thaii their brethren, 
for the rights of one man are as sacred in his sight as the 
rights of any other man. 

(2.) The gospel tells us the partition wall is broken down — 
hat there is no difference between Jew and Gentile — that 
God is no respecter of persons — that he, too, is unchangeable ; 
and, therefore, if it was wrong for Jew to oppress Jew, it is 
now equally wrong for any human being to oppress any other 
human being. 

Do you now say there are other passages which seem to 
sanction the principle of slavery ? We remark : 

(1.) Ninety-nine hundredths of Bible-readers will admit 
that the foregoing passages show the general ^jmir^j^/es of 
the Bible — Justice and Mercy ; and are in accordance with 
the general tenor of its teachino- in historical incident. 

(2.) A correct rule of interpretation, as is universally ad- 
mitted, requires that no author be made to contradict himself, 
and no isolated passages be so construed as to contradict clear 
and well-defined principles laid down by that author. 

(3.) That when words or isolated passages are susceptible 
yt two constructions, we must choose that construction which 
harmonizes best with principles previously laid down. 

Now, the passages you will cite are susceptible of two con- 
structions — one which you will put on, and one which we 
shall. And that construction which harmonizes best with the 
principles which we have seen are laid down in the Bible — 
that construction must be the correct one. 

Do you begin by saying the Bible declares Canaan was to 
be " a servant of servants imto his brethren ?'* (Gen, ix. 25.) 
We answer : 

1. The fulfillment of a prophecy is no justification of those 
who fulfill it, else the Ishmaelites whose hand was against every 
man and every man's hand against them, Judas, who betrayed 
Christ, and the Jews who crucified him, were innocent; for 
these events were foretold. 

2. The prophecy has had its fulfilment by othes nations 
long since. 

3. The people whom we are enslaving are not Canaanitiss, 
The Canaanites were Asiatics, a little tawny, with straight hair, 
different features and difierent language from those of the peo- 
ple of Western Africa, from whence our slaves were obtained. 
The Canaanites were the enterprising men, the shipbuild- 



16 SINFULNESS OF SLAVEHOLDINO. 

crs, the traders and merchants of their agp, as the Sido-riians 
and Tyrians. They settled the land of Canaan and the is- 
lands of the Mediterranean. A colony went to Carthage. 
Tiiese, as historians tell us, had straight hair. 

Phut settled in Afi-ica, and his posterity aud Some o{ the 
posterity of Cash, as RoUin tells us, migrated westward, and 
they doubtless were the progenitors of our slaves, but on 
them no prophetic malediction rested. For the carse was 
to be upon Canaan, not upon Ham. All the talk we have 
about the word Ham meaning black, and made so by the 
curse of the Almighty, is not only without proof — mere as- 
sertion — but is futile, because Ham is not the person cursed, 
but Canaan. And then the pro-slavery men affirming, it 
devolves upon them to prove that these slaves we have are 
descendants of Canaan. This cannot be done. The oppo- 
site is easily shown, as above alluded to. 

Do you again bring up Gen. xvii. 12, and say Abraham 
bought children with his money, and that he held these as 
slaves, as property, in involuntary servitude ? (for this only is 
slavery.) We answer: 1. If such were actually bought, we 
know from the same passage, and other passages, that these 
children were to be circumcised, and that no male person, 
uncircumcised, young or old, could be a member of the fam- 
ilies of the patriarchs. " Thus they were admitted to all the 
privileges of the Lord." — Watson. 

2. It is clear that the patriarchs, living not in confederacies, 
with the strong arm of municipal law to aid them, but wan- 
dering as individuals from country to country, with their 
hundreds of armed servants, could not have held these ser- 
vants as slaves — persons held as property in involuntary ser- 
\nce. From the very circumstances of the case, the servants 
must have been voluntary in their service. 

President Shannon supposes Abraham had from 1,500 to 
2,000 slaves in his possession — that is, one man held 2,000 
human beings, and 318 of them armed, in involuntary bond- 
age. The boys in the streets would laugh at such absurd 
conclusions. These children bought, were not held as slaves. 

The mere fact that they were bought does not pro\'e that 
they were held as slaves, as property. Boaz bought Ruth, 
Hosea his wife, and Jacob his, but they did not hold their 
wives as slaves. Nehemiah bought many of his brethren 
from the Persians (see Nehem. v. 8) ; but he did not hold 



ARGUMENT FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT. 1^ 

tbem as slaves, as property, to involuntary service. They were 

restored to freedom immediately. 

Do you present another passage, Lev. xxv. 44-4G, and 
claim from this, that the Jews bought adult slaves from a 
third person, and held them as property, and transmitted 
them and their issue to the children of these Jews ? We re- 
ply : 1. If these servants had children, it is clear from Gen. 
xvii. 12, 13, and Exod. xii. 44, that these children and 
their parents had to be circumcised, and as such were made 
Jews, "entitled to all the privileges and immunities of Jews" 
— went out free at the jubilee, as the Jew did. (See Lev. xxv. 
10.) So there was no hereditary servitude like ours — only a 
bond-service for a limited time, and that, as we have seen, 
voluntary. 

2. The Hebrew word ebed^ a form of which, in Lev. xxv. 
44, is rendered "bondmen," does not, of itself, necessarily 
designate a slave ; but denotes, as our word servant, a person 
who does service for anothei-, without regard to the time for 
which, or the jjrincijjles upon which he does service. Hence 
it may designate — 

1. One who does voluntary service. (See 1 Kings xii. 7.) 
"And they spake unto him, saying. If thou wilt be a servant 
n'2)! ebed) unto this people this day, and wilt serve and 
answer them, and speak good words to them, then will they 
be thy servants (D"1AJ! ebeds) for ever. See, also. Gen. xxiv. 
2 : "Abraham said unto his eldest servant, (13J^ ebed,) that 
ruled over all that he had." 

2. It may designate those who pay a tax or tributary 
service to another nation ; as that of the Gibeonites to the 
Jews, in doing service for the house of God, (see Josh. ix. 23,) 
yet having their own houses, property and families, and 
living in their own cities. (See Josh. x. 1 ; Ezra ii. 70 ; 
2 Sam. xxi. 1-14 ; Nehem. \\\. 73.) 

3. It may designate a slave, as in Gen. xxxix. 17. 

4. It may designate one who binds himself to do service 
for another, as Exod. xxi. 5, 6 ; or as the Jew who sold him- 
self, that is, bound himself to perform service to the year of 
jubilee. (See Lev. xxv. 47.) 

And, in the text under consideration, the word designates 
the relation, and is translated bondmen, because the time of 
service was fixed by laio. In becoming servants, they bound 
themselves, by law, to serve until the jubilee. We said the 



18 SINFULNESS OF SLAVEHOLDING. 

servant hound himself , for from Lev. xxv. 45 we learn that the 
Jews were to buy, that is, j'j'/'ocMJ-e service, (for this is the pri- 
mary import of the word rendered " buy,") from the strangers 
dwelling in their land, as well as those round about them. 
And the words "children of the stranger," in verse 25, mean 
^dult Gentiles ; just as the words "children of Israel," in verse 
26 mean adult Israelites. Moreover, these persons, called 
children of the stranger, had " begotten children in the land." 
(See verse 26.) Of these the Jews were to buy, or procure 
service. 

Now who sold these strangers ? The Jew dare not seize 
them, and do so. Such an act was punished with death. 
(See Exod. xxi. 6.) Then it is clear that they hound them- 
selves^ or sold their service until the jubilee. Do you say 
these servants were to be a possession and an inheritance, 
and, therefore, must have been held as slaves, as property? 
We reply : The words " possession " and " inheritance " are 
often used in a different or limited sense, not designating 
property tenure. God says, concerning Israel, " I am their 
inheritance, and ye shall give them no inheritance in Israel ; 
I am their possession." (Ezek. xliv. 28.) Did Israel own or 
hold God as a slave, as property, because he is called their 
"inheritance " and "possession?" Certainly not. So pre- 
vious statutes, as we have seen, forbid the idea that the Jews 
should have an absolute property tenure in these Gentiles, or 
strangers. 

Again, Isaiah, describing the return of the Jews from cap- 
tivity in Babylon, says, " the strangers (Babylonians) will be 
joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob ; 
and Israel shall possess them in the land of the Lord for 
servants and handmaids." (See Isa. xiv. 1, 2.) The truth 
taught is that many of the Babylonians would embrace the 
Jewish religion. To do so, they would have to become cir- 
cumcised, and members of the family — " would be induced to 
become proselytes; to be willing to accompany them to 
their own homes, and to become their servants there." — 
Barnes. Here possession denotes the service which the Baby- 
lonians voluntarily rendered to the Jews — "they clave to 
the house of Jacob." 

Also the word " for ever," in the text under consideration, 
is not to be used as it generally is, denoting perpetual prop- 
erty in these servants and their issue. For the master did 
not live perpetually — the servant did not live perpetually — 



ARGCMENT FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT. 19 

and, as we have seen, there was no such thing as hereditaiy 
slavery — i. e., children of servants were not held as slaves, 
but circumcised and made Jews, "entitled to all the privileges 
of Jews." Also, the jubilee terminated all bond-service. 
Josephus says, even the ear-bored servant and his wife and 
children went out free then. 

The passage, correctly rendered, is as follows : " Always 
ye shall serve yourselves with them ;" that is, you shall in- 
variably — always — procure your sei^ants from among the 
strangers among you, and around you. Barnes gives a 
similar exposition of the text, and you will see the same in 
the margin of the Bible published by the Bible Society. 

Thus expounded, the text presents not the Jewish code as 
simply a retinement of pre\ious barbarisms, still selfish and 
unjust, but steps at once upon the broad ground of justice and 
mutual benevolence, and harmonizes with principles and stat- 
utes previously referred to. 

But did we even grant that the patriarchs, and the Israel- 
ites under the Mosaic economy, held slaves, that would be no 
permit to us : for the patriarchs had concubines ; we may not 
therefore have. 

Under the Mosaic economy, God commanded the Israelites 
to slay the Amalekites. God, as sovereign, had a right to 
punish the Amalekites, for their sins, with the sword, if he 
chose. But may we, therefore, without any such command, 
go and make war upon an innocent people ? 

Likewise, had God even given the Jews the privilege to go 
and enslave the Canaanites, because of their sins, we may not, 
without any such permit, go and enslave the same people, 
much less an innocent and a wholly different people. For the 
Africans, whom we are enslaving, are a different race of men, 
different in form, color, and language, from those Asiatics 
who did a bond-service to the Jews. 

But do you say the principle of slavery Avas sanctioned ? 
This we deny. And if it had been, then who shall determine 
the race, color, or form to be enslaved ? We have not got 
the people who did service for the Jews, and God has not 
said in his Word that any color has the right over another 
color to enslave it. 

Thus, it is clear tha-t none of the isolated passages most 
relied on sanction slavery; and the plain principles of the 
Old Testament show it to be sinful. 



20 SINFULNESS OF SLAVKIIOLDING. 



NEW TESTAMENT. 

In this, we are told that " God hath made of one blood all 
nations of men." (Acts xvii. IV.) And, that "he is no re- 
specter of persons." (Acts x. 34 ; Eph. vi. 9.) And Christ 
has laid down as the foundation of all true religion, and 
as the rule of our conduct towards him and his children, 
that we " love the Lord with all our heart, and our neighbor 
as ourselves. This is the law and the prophets." (Matt. xxii. 
3*7,40.) And a parallel passage to this last — one meaning 
the same thing — is : " Whatsoever ye would that men should 
do unto you, do ye even so to them ; for this is the law and 
the prophets" — the substance of all. This is called the Golden 
Rule, because it is the best one ever framed by which to 
regulate human conduct ; and one so ^^lain, that all who de- 
sire to do so, can easily understand it. This rule plainly, as 
the large class of mankind admit, forbids our bringinr) any 
man into slavery, or retaining him in it, after he is brought 
in by others. 

A prominent member in one of the churches of the land 
was, not long since, attempting to prove slavery right from 
the Bible. Said a bystander, Avho is not a professed Chris- 
tian, "Any man who has common sense, knows that slavery 
is wrong, without a Bible. But let us take the Bible. 
' Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye 
even so unto them.' Can a man act according to this rule, and 
enslave his fellow-mortal V The member saw the force of 
the precept, and abruptly remarked : " There is a difference 
between me and a nigger.^'' But, said the bystandei', "Are 
negroes not men ?" " Yes," said the member. " Then," said 
the bystander, " Christ requires you to treat them as men — 
as you would men should treat you." Here was au end of 
the argument ; for, as is manifest, if it is wrong to enslave a 
white man, it is equally wrong to enslave a black man. But, 
says one, if men's desires are to be the standai'd by which 
this rule is to be interpreted, then any idle man may dem »nd 
of me to give him a part of my farm, for which I had tolled 
hard, saying, " If I were in your place and you were in 
mine, you would want me to give to you." To this we 
reply, he has no right to desire his own aggrandizement at 
the expeaise of another's righteous gains. This would be 
violating another command, which forbids us to covet auy 



NEW TESTAMENT. 21 

thing that belongs to another. The meaning of the rule is, 
"All lawful things ye would that others should do unto you, 
that do ye unto them." Now, as Wesley said, " Liberty is 
the birthright of every man — the inalienable right of eveiy 
man, not a criminal ;" and to desire another to give him his 
liberty, is not coveting that which belongs to another, but 
claiming that which by nature and right belongs to himself. 
The above text, then, condemns slavery. 

Again — the New Testament tells us not to go beyond nor 
defraud one another in any matter. (1 Thess. iv. 6.) This 
makes no exception for color, but fixes our duty to all men. 
To defraud is to take without giving an equivalent — to 
cheat. When either the master, or society, takes from the 
slave the proceeds of his labor — when the master, or society, 
takes from the poor slave his wife, his child, his liberty, does 
— can the master give an equivalent? Hog and hominy 
are no compensation for lost manhood. The motto of our 
forefathers was, " Give me liberty, or give me death." Does 
the master give an equivalent for lost liberty ? If not, he 
defrauds his neighbor, he sins against high Heaven, he sins 
against the person of Christ ; for Christ will say at the judg- 
ment-day, " Inasmuch as ye did it [acts of unkindness] unto 
one of the least of these my brethren, ye did it unto me." 
(Matt. XXV. 45.) 

Again — the New Testament requires : " Masters, give 
unto your servants that which is just and equal, knowing 
that ye also have a Master in heaven." (Col. iv. 1.) Now, 
justice manifestly has for its object the securing to man his 
natural rights, rights which he would have in a state of 
nature — right to personal ownership or liberty — right to 
personal security — right to the proceeds of his labor, etc. 
If, then, the master will give justice to his servant, he cannot 
hold him as a slave a single moment. Also, in the fore- 
going text, the apostle requires masters to give to their ser- 
vants that which is equal — that is, to treat them as a fellow- 
equal, as you would you or your child should be treated, 
were you or your child laboring for another man. Do as 
you would others should do unto you, is what it means ; and 
in the words of the Synod of Kentucky, in their able address : 
"If masters complied with the apostolic injunction to them, 
and gave to their servants, as they are directed to do, ' that 
which is just and equal,' there would be at once an end of 
all that is properly called slavery." 



22 JINFCLNKSS OF SLAVEHOLDINO. 

That the apostle intended to teach that masters who 
held slaves should give to those slaves their liberty — persotral 
ownership, is manifest from the fact that, when ' addressing 
those servants held as slaves, (doubtless by irreligious 
masters,) the apostle says — " if thou mayest be made free, 
use it rather." (1 Cor. vii. 21.) This is proof positive that 
the aposile considered freedom as a preferable state for the 
servant, and right for him to have it ; otherwise he would 
not have urged the servan to take it and doubtless every 
Christian master would, as far as he could, labor to secure 
that which was right, and taught as right by the inspired 
penman. This passage alone proves that liberty is the right 
of the slave, and that to wthhold it is sin. 

Again, the apostle, speaking to Timothy concerning the 
law given b}- God through Moses, says : " The law is made 
for murderers of fathers, and murderers of mothers, for man- 
slayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves 
with mankind, for men-stealers, for liars, for perjured persons, 
and if there be anything contrary to sound doctrine," — the 
glorious gospel of the blessed God being the standard. 
(See 1 Tim. i. 9-11.) That slavery was opposed to, or con- 
demned by the gospel, we have already seen. It is there- 
fore, by the teaching of the apostle, condemned by the law. 
But the word here translated " men-stealers" condemns 
slaveholdiug, directly and expressly. The original Greek 
word for man-stealer Is afSpaHoSistrji, {andrapodistes,) which 
is formed from the verb avSpartoSt^u, (andmpodizo,) which 
means to enslave. (See Robinson.) This is its true and 
primary meaning. No man will or can dispute this. 
"Andrapodistes, coming from this verb, means one who 
makes a slave in any one of the senses of andrapodizo." 
(See Donnegan.) Ai'SparfoSKjr'tti.j, then, the word used in 
the text, includes all those engaged directly or indirectly in 
enslaving their fellow-men, or who hold them in bondage. 
This interpretation is in accordance with reason and justice. 
Is not the knowing participant in crime as truly guilty as 
the perpetrator of the first act? Is not the smuggler of 
stolen goods as guilty as he who first stole them ? The 
above exposition has been confirmed by some of the highest 
ecclesiastical authorities in Christendom. 

In the Confession of Faith of the Presbyteiian Church, as 
amended by act of the General Assembly of 1794, and ap- 
pended to the 142d question of the Larger Catechism, will 



NEW TESTAMENT. 23 

be found the following note in exposition of this text : " The 
law is made for men-stealers. This crime, among the Jews, 
exposed the perpetrators of it, as we have seen, to capital 
punishment, (see Exod. xxi. 16 ;) and the apostle here 
cliisses them with siRne7-s of the first rank. The word he 
uses, in its original import, comprehends all who are con- 
cerned in bringing any of the human race into slavery, 
or retaining them in it. Stealers of men are those who 
bring off slaves or freemen, and keep, buy, or sell them. 
' To steal a freeman,' says Grotius, ' is the highest kind 
of theft.' In other instances we only steal human property ; 
but when we steal or retain men in slavery, we seize those 
who, in common with oui-selves, are constituted, by the 
original grant, lords of the earth. Gen. i. 28." 

Dr. Adam Clark, a distinguished Methodist divine, in his 
Commentary, has these words on the above text: "Andra- 
podistais, slave-dealers ; whether those who carry on the 
trafficJn human flesh and blood ; or those who steal.a person 
in order to sell him into bondage ; or those who buy such 
stolen men and women, no matter of what color, or what 
country ; or the nations who legahze, or connive at such 
traffic ; all these are men-stealers, and God classes them with 
the most flagitious of mortals." 

Slaveholding, then, is not only sinful, but classed with sins 
of the most aggravated character. We have then sustained 
our position, that the New Testament also condemns slavery 
and slaveholding. 

Does the objector come up with isolated passages, as objec- 
tions to our argument ? Then, we again remind him of that 
plain rule of interpretation, which requires that isolated pas- 
sages be not so construed as to contradict plain and well- 
known principles previously laid down in the same book — that 
an author should not be so construed as to contradict himself. 

That the principles of the Bible condemn slavery, is con- 
ceded. 

Wayland, a Baptist divine, in his Moral Science, says : 
"The moral precepts of the Bible are diametrically opposed 
to slavery." 

Scott, in his Commentary, says : " The principles of both 
the law and the gospel, when carried out, infallibly abolish 
Blavery." 

Barnes says : " No candid reader of the New Testament, it 



24 SINFULNESS OF SLAVEHOLDING. 

is believed, can doubt that the principles of Christianity are 
opposed to the existence of slavery." 

Adam Clark, a Methodist divine, in his Commentary, says : 
" In heathen countries, slavery was in some sort excusable, but 
among Christians it is an enormity and a crime, for which 
perdition has scarcely an adequate state of punishment." 

Now, every candid man must admit that, the principles of 
Christianity being opposed to slavery, its p7-actice must be ; and 
that its specific precepts should be construed in accordance 
with its principles ; and the individual who construes them 
otherwise is manifestly in error. 

Let us notice some of these passages. Does the objector 
begin with Eph. vi. 5-9; Col. iii. 22-25; 1 Pet. ii. 18, 
claiming from these passages that servants are commanded 
to be obedient to their masters; and that this proves that 
masters do not do wrong in enslaving them ? We reply : 

1. As we have already shown the word translated servant 
in the Old Testament, so we might show that SouTioj, in the 
New Testament, does not of necessity designate a slave. And 
yet, before a shadow of argument can be derived from these 
passages, it must be proved that slaves are here designated. 

2. There is a relation designated by the term servant, 
which is right; as that of a minor, or bound child to a guar- 
dian ; a hireling who voluntarily binds himself, contracts to 
do the lawful bidding of his employer. There were Judaizing 
teachers, and some Gentile believers, "who, on pretense that 
they had a sufficient rule of conduct in the spiritual gifts with 
which they were endowed," affirmed that they were under 
no obligation to any other authority, and taught others the 
same. Here was a violation of the obligations of children to 
parents, wards to guardians, hirelings to employers — relations 
useful and right. Now, to correct such teaching, and to pre- 
vent the "name of God and his doctrine" from being blas- 
phemed in giving (as was claimed by Judaizing teachers) 
countenance to such insubordination — the violation of relations 
always admitted to be right — the apostle properly enjoined 
upon servants obedience, and the command would be just as 
appropriate, supposing slaves to be unknown. 

3. The injunction to obedience is not without limitation. 
Should a husband require the wife to murder, or profane the 
name of God, or steal, she would be under no obligation to 
do so. The command then to wives presupposes that the 
requirements are reasonable and riffht ; otherwise she is not 



NEW TESTAMENT. 26 

under obligation to obey. So, the command to the servant 
to be obedient presupposes that the master requires only that 
which is right. The command does not require that we give 
up our natural rights. Suppose we white men were held as 
slaves by the Indians or English, would we suppose that the 
command to servants, " to be obedient to masters," implied 
that the Indians or English had a right to hold us as slaves — 
deprive us of liberty ? This prepares us to notice, 

4, The fact that we, as free citizens, are required to bo 
obedient and honest — " subject to the powers that be" — is no 
evidence that God recognizes the right, in individual tyrants 
or governments, to enslave or even oppress us. So the fac^ 
that servants are required to be obedient, even if those servants 
be slaves, is no evidence that the master has a right to enslave. 
We are commanded to " do good to those who despitefully 
use us," but this does not imply that our enemy has a right 
to so treat us. 

We are commanded, if our enemy "smite us on one 
cheek, to turn the other also ;" that is, to bear it patiently, not 
to resort to individual retaliation. But does this obedience 
enjoined, and this forbearance imposed, imply that our enemy 
has a right thus to treat us ? Certainly not. 

Again, the servant is commanded to be obedient not only 
to the good and gentle, but also to the froward, (trxo^oj, tor- 
tuous.) 

Does this injunction to obedience on the part of the servant 
imply that the froward or tortuous master has a right to act 
so towards the servant ? Certainly not. No more does the 
injunction to obedience on the part of the servant imply that 
the master has a right to tyrannize over and rob the servant 
of his natural right — liberty. One duty is not to be so con- 
strued as to conflict with another duty. And to construe the 
duty of obedience, on the part of the servant, so as to yield 
his liberty, his personal ownership, to the master, is to deprive 
him of the capacity to perform other duties — as that of wor- 
shipping God when and where he in conscience may deem it 
duty, — to perform duties to his own soul, to his wife, chil- 
and to liis fellov\f-being3. 

Does the objector say, further, that " the servants are de- 
scribed as being 'under the j^oke,' (1 Tim. vi. 1, 2,) and that 
this means that they were enslaved ?" We answer : 

1. The word translated servant, as we have shown, does 
not necessarily denote one who is a slave. 
2 



■^D SINFILNESS OF SLA VEHOLPINO. 

2. Neither is it certain that the phrase "yoke," and 
"under the yoke," refer to slavery. As used in the New 
Testament, and apphed to men in every other instance, it 
designates a vohintary relation ; as, " Take my yoke upon you, 
and learn of me." So in all other cases. The relation 
alluded to by the apostle may have been merely a voluntary 
relation — the relation of minors bound, or of those who had 
bound themselves, to heathen and Christian masters. This 
view is the more plausible, from the fact that the apostle 
urges, as a consideration of obedience and kind regard, that 
the master was a " partaker of the benefit." 

The relation was such, that master and servant could, with 
propriety, be termed partners, not in the sense of getting gain, 
for that is not the meaning of tvcpycaiai {euergesias^ the 
Greek word here translated "of the benefit;" but in doing 
good, or conferring benefit. (See Robinson's Greek and 
English Lexicon.) The presumption is, that " believing mas- 
ters," not mere professors of religion, would make all their 
business conduce to the pvomotion of the gospel and the sal- 
vation of souls. How totally inconsistent is this with the idea 
that the relation was an involuntary one ! If the law of the 
land made one Christian a slave to another, the law of Christ's 
house emancipated him in a moment! Its language was, 
''■All ye are hrethrenP "Who does not see that it would be 
ridiculous for any master of a slave to say to him, " Brother, 
we shall be able to do a good deal for the missionary cause 
this year " ? 

3. There w^as a propriety in such instructions, even to 
those not slaves, from the fact that there were Judaizing 
teachers, of the party of the Jews called Zealots, who taught 
that it was not right for any one to yield obedience to those 
who were not Jews ; especially they taught that this was true 
with Christians, who were the " Lord's freemen." (See Mc- 
Knight's comment on 1 Tim. vi. 3 ; Titus i. 10, and his intro- 
duction to 13th chapter of Romans.) 

It is then by no means certain that the servants alluded to 
by the apostle were slaves. It is assumption to say they 
were. 

4. But if it yet be claimed that the servants under the 
yoke were slaves, and that they were held as such by behev- 
ing masters, then we reply, Christians could have been slaves 
to each other only nominally, not really — so, only so far as 
the claim of the Roman law was concerned — not bv the will 



NEW TESTAMENT. 2*7 

of the master, as we have seen from the above. The laws of 
Rome were such that a master could not emancipate legally, 
only as he took the slave before a magistrate, gave good and 
sufficient reasons why the slave should be free, and then ob- 
tained the consent of the magistrate ; which was diflBcult to 
obtain in a country where the slaves were swarming in tumult- 
uous thousands, where insurrections had been frequent, and 
where public sentiment was almost universally opposed to 
emancipation. (See Gibbon's Rome, vol. i. chap. 2 ; and 
Bibhcal Repository, vol. vi.) Hence, a master might give up 
his slave — say to him, " go free," and treat him as such ; yet 
such slave, as the slaves set free by the Quakers in South 
Carolina, in opposition to law, would be regarded, by the 
Roman law, as property still, and, in that sense, under the 
yoke, but not held so by the Christian master. He could not 
do so and obey Christ : " Whatsoever ye would others should 
do to you, do ye even so to them." 

But, it ■«all be said, this proves nothing respecting slaves 
to those who were not Christians. To this we answer, that 
obedience to such masters is put by the apostle upon an 
entirely different footing. The only reason given for obeying 
such masters was, " that the name of God, and his doctrine, 
be not blasphemed." A very different reason, surely, from 
that given iu the other case, and from that given for obedi- 
ence to parents. " Children, obey your parents in the Lord, 
for this is right." And yet this command to children is 
hmited by the phrase, " in the Lord." But slavery knows no 
such limitation to obedience or object for obedience as the 
Bible sanctions. The slave is, to all intents and purposes, at 
the disposal of his mastei', and must obey. Thus says the 
law. Now, suppose his master command him to violate the 
Sabbath. Must he do this, in order that the name of God 
be not blasphemed ? How absurd ! There is a Umit, there- 
fore, to all the obedience required of servants to their masters 
in the Bible, and that limit, if allowed by the laws, would 
make real slavery impossible. 

But let us look still further at the object for which servants 
should obey their masters. We have seen that there was 
propriety in the injunction, if addressed to servants not slaves, 
on account of the false teaching of the Zealots. There was 
propriety in it also from other circumstances, surrounding 
the disciples at that time. There was not a free country in 
the world to which they might flee and be safe ; " on the side 



28 SINFULNESS OF SLAVEHOLDINO. 

of oppressors there was power ;" punishment would unavoid- 
ably follow disobedience, in every instance, even when con- 
science required them to disobey. Is it strange that the 
apostles, in such circumstances, should counsel obedience, 
submission ; especially as it would, in many instances, prevent 
blasphemy 2 Where we cannot maintain our rights, an at- 
tempt to do so by resistance becomes wrongs from inexpedi- 
ency, and results oi ily in contention, and perhaps blasphemy. 
Such was then the case of the slave, and therefore this in- 
junction of the apostle was good and right. But by what 
contortion and wresting cart it be inferred hence, that masters 
had a right to command such obedience ? Certainly none 
that will not shock as much the intellect as the moral sense 
of any upright and discerning man. 
Now, it being an admitted fact, 

1. That the Bible is an inspired book, wiitten by a mind 
that does not teach contradictions ; and, 

2. That the plain principles of the Bible (justice, mercy, 
impartial love) are opposed to slavery ; and, 

3. That isolated passages or precepts must be so interpret- 
ed as to harmonize with the fundamental principles of the 
Bible ; and the above constructions harmonizing with those 
principles ; one of these, or some construction similar, must 
be the correct one. Certain it is, that the passage ought not 
to be construed so as to favor slavery. 

Again — Does the Bible teach moral opposites ? Does it 
teach at one moment that liberty is right, and at the next 
bi'eath that slavery is right ? Who will assert it ? And yet 
this is really the position of those who maintain that the 
Bible sanctions slavery. In their own case, they claim that the 
Bible sanctions their liberty ; but in the case of another, they 
claim that the Bible sanctions his enslavement. Such incon- 
sistencies work out their own cure — show that those who 
practice them or teach them are in error. 

But does the objector say, " Oh, I don't claim that the 
apostles sanctioned the enslavement of white men, but the en- 
slavement of negroes — black people !" Well, let us test this 
plea also. Now, it will not be disputed, that if the apostles' 
teaching and practice sanctioned slavery, it sanctioned the 
slavery of that age — the slavery amongst which the apostles 
moved. N. B. This slavery was white slavery ; that is, 
the large portion of those enslaved were as white, and many 
of them ivhiter than their masters. This will be apparent to 



NEW TESTAMENT. 29 

every reader, when we reflect that the Romans had no slave- 
trade to the western coast of Africa, as we have had, but 
made slaves of those taken as captives in war. And now, 
who were the nations conquered ? They were Germans, Gauls, 
Spaniards, Grecians, Egyptians, Carthaginians, Syrians, Ai*- 
menians, — those living in Mesopotamia, Dacia, and the many 
provinces of Asia Minor. 

And now, what was the com^ilexion of these nations ? Most 
were as white or whiter than the Romans themselves. So 
true was this, that the Romans (who were then the conquer- 
ors of all the nations among whom the apostles moved) des- 
ignated their slaves from the rest of their citizens by a pecu- 
liar dress. 

Also, Virginia was claimed as a slave, and she was so fair, 
that the " modest blush" could be seen on her cheek. She 
could not have been claimed as a slave, had their slaves been 
only negroes. 

Also, when the Latins demanded hostages of the Romans, 
they demanded a number of the daughters of the first fami- 
lies of Rome. And the Romans took of their slaves and at- 
tired them in the dress of the females of Rome, and sent them 
to the Latins, who received them as Romans. This they 
would not have done, had the slaves been negroes. Scores 
of such facts might be mentioned, showing that the slaves of 
the nations among whom the apostles moved and taught 
were white. If then the teaching and practice of the apos- 
tles sanctioned slavery, they sanctioned white slavery. Who 
will claim this ? He that does it, in the language of another, 
makes himself the enemy of his species. 

But again it is said, " Christ lived in the age of slavery," 
(but not in the land of slavery,) " and so far as the record goes, 
he said nothing against slavery . we may therefore infer it is 
right." We reply : 

1. We know not how often Christ spoke against slavery. 
We have not on record all that he said. (See John xxi. 25.) 

2. If we may infer that slavery is right, because, " so far 
as the record goes," Christ spake not against it, then may we 
infer that he approved the deliberate slaughter of the children 
of Bethlehem by Herod, and the murder of John the Bap- 
tist ; for, " so far as the i-ecord goes," he said nothing against 
these acts. 

It is said, " the apostles labored amongst slavery — why 
did they not speak against it — in so many words condemn 
it ?" 



30 SINFULNESS OF SLAVEHOLDINO, 

We ask, in return, why they did not speak directly against 
gambling, piracy, h\irg\&rj, persecution, and gladiatorial shows ? 
Do you say they did not attempt to specify all things wrong, 
but laid down principles against all wrong ? So we say they 
laid down principles opposed to slavery. Again, by the Ro- 
man law, "The father had power over his son to beat him 
cruelly, expose his child in infancy to death — pronounce it 
illegitimate, by refusing to take it formally from the ground 
and place it in his bosom — could imprison or put to death, if 
it deserved it." — Hague. 

"The son in his father's house was a mere thing; con- 
founded by the laws with the movables, the cattle, and the 
slaves, whom the capricious master might alienate or destroy, 
without being responsible to an earthly tribunal." — Gibbon. 

So vdth the wife. " The law placed her like a slave at his 
feet ; and her life hung on his decree," If it was found that 
she had drunk wine, then the husband might put her to death 
Tacitus mentions a case in the reign of Nero. Should a Ro- 
man citizen marry a foreigner, then the husband might, at 
any whim, alienate her, treat her childi'en as illegitimate, and 
the Roman law gave to the mother and children no redi-ess. 

Strange as it may seem to some, " so far as the record goes," 
no one in all the realm of the Caesars is told that these things 
are wrong — a contravention of the original law of Paradise, 
which placed the husband and wife on the ground of a true 
moral equality. We ask, why did not the apostles tell hus- 
bands and parents not to do these things ? Why did they not 
speak against them ? Do you say that everybody can see that 
such things were wrong, and that the apostles laid down rules 
or requirements, which, if carried out, would destroy all such 
things? So we answer in reference to slavery — everybody 
can see it is wrong ; and did we carry out the requirements 
laid down by the apostles, we should soon do away all slavery. 

Does the objector then ask, " Why did not the apostle tell 
the servant to try to get his freedom ?" We answer : Some 
servants, such as minors, bound, and those who had volunta- 
rily bound themselves for an equivalent, these ought not to 
seek release. But those servants, whom the context shows 
to be slaves, to those he said, " If thou mayest be made free, 
use it rather." (1 Cor. vii. 21.) Or, as some good scholars 
claim, and as the original Greek text will allow, [oxk' n xat 
Swaaak sxsvdspoi yivsadM ixahov ^^psoat,) " If thou art able to free 
thyself, use it rather" : thus deciding that freedom is right, 



NEW TESTAMENT. 31 

and to be sought by righteous means. And this decision 
of the apostle ought of itself to satisfy any mind that the 
apostle did not intend to sanction slavery. 

True, some quote the preceding part of the verse : " If thou 
art called, being a servant, care not for that," as a sanction of 
slavery. Now, as the phrases, " lay not up treasures on earth," 
and " take no thought for the morrow," simply mean that we 
should not place our affections on earthly treasures, and not 
be more anxious about the things of to-morrow than the in- 
terests of the soul, so the phrase under consideration means, 
' be not more anxious about temporal freedom than spiritual 
freedom.' And as the phrases alluded to did not hterally for- 
bid making some provision for the morrow, and for coming 
winter, so the phrase, " If thou art called, being a servant, 
care not for it," does not literally forbid desire and efforts for 
freedom ; because the apostle says, immediately after, " If 
thou art able to free thyself, choose it rather;" or, as our 
translation has it, " If thou mayest be made free, choose it 
rather." 

The apostle did not intend to sanction the withholding 
liberty from an innocent man, but the case is a most forcible 
one, teaching the opposite. And hence the language in the 
23d verse: "Ye are bought with a price," (the blood of 
Christ,) " be not ye the servants of men." That is, you ought 
to employ your time and strength in serving God, rather than 
men. So far, then, as the teaching of the apostle is concerned, 
there is nothing in it which sanctions slavery, but it rather 
makes it the manifest duty of every master to secure to the 
slave that liberty which he ought to employ for the glory of 
God and the well-being of man. And there is nothing in the 
teaching of the apostle which forbids the slave peacefully to 
secure his hberty, if he beheves he can serve God better in so 
doing. 

Does the objector ask, Why did not the apostles tell masters 
to free their slaves ? We answer, as Christ did on a certain 
occasion, by asking another question : " Why did they not 
tell fathers not to expose their children to death — to do all 
they could in treating them humanely, and let them have 
freedom at adult age ?" 

Why did they not tell husbands, if they should take wives 
from another nation than their own, to treat these wives and 
their children as legitimate ; and not to put a wife to death 
for drinking wine ? These things were contrary to the spirit 



32 SINFL'LNKSS OK ShAVKHOLDlXG. 

of the gospel, as all will admit. Why, then, did not the 

apostles command fathers and husbands to act accordingly ? 

When the objector answers these questions, we will answer 

his question. 

2. They did tell masters to "give to their servants that 

which is just and equal," which, as we have seen, would 

secure freedom to the slave of every master obeying the in- 
junction. And we shall soon see that there was no more 

necessity for a specific command on this point, than in refer- 
ence to many other wrongs. 

Does the objector say they used terms which designated 
slaves — property tenure in man? We reply: 

(1.) The term SovXoi, Hke our own word servant, designates 
one who does service for another, irrespective of the time for 
which, or the principles upon which, the service is rendered. 
Hence, it is sometimes applied to Christ and the apostles. See 
Phil. ii. 7, and 2 Cor. iv. 5. Were the apostles and Christ 
the slaves — the property of any man ? And though the term 
may also be used to designate a slave — property tenure in 
man, yet, 

(2.) A great error into which many persons have fallen is 
that of interpreting the Greek words fiorXoj and xuptoj or 
5sartotr;ii servant and master, by the Roman law, or our own 
civil law, instead of the law of Christ. Under the former, 
these words often denoted property, and property holders in 
man. Under the latter, the law of Christ, they could denote 
no such thing. Such relations were a moral impossibility. 
As well may we suppose, that when they used the Greek 
words yovivi and tcxvov, parent and child — avri and yun;, 
husband and wife, they meant by these, property and proper ti/ 
holders — and by their use, meant to sanction the principle as 
right. We know that the law of Christ destroyed S2ich rela- 
tions, and restored the primitive law of moral equality. 

These epistles of the apostles in which the above words are 
found, were not addressed to the world at large ; nor to mem- 
bers of the Roman government as such ; but to little bands 
of Christians, with whom the law of Christ was above all 
other laws — a community whose fundamental law was, " love 
thy neighbor as thyself" — " whatsoever ye would that men 
should do to you, do ye even so to them ;" a community 
taught to call no man master — "one" (Christ) "is your 
master, and all ye are brethren." These laws formed a 
standard by which to regulate all relations of society ; and 



NEW TESTAMENT. 33 

»mvery could no more exist under such laws, than it could 
exist in a government which was a literal and pure democ- 
racy. That men acting on the principles of Roman law held 
slaves, we admit; but that they, acting on the principles of 
Christ's law, held slaves, we deny. Under the latter there 
was no necessity for a specific command requiring husbands 
not arbitrarily to take the lives of their wives or children; 
nor to withhold from their servants their Uberly — their natural 
rights. Under this law it was sufficient to say, " Husbands, 
love your wives — masters, give unto your servants that which 
is just and equal" — "do unto others as ye would they should 
do unto you." And as they destroyed the property relation 
in the wife and the child, so they destroyed the property 
relation in the servant. 

The Bible then giving no sanction to slavery, and its funda- 
mental principles being manifestly condemnatory of it, and 
slavery being a plain violation of natural rights, it should be 
conceded to be sinful by every candid mind. 

The large mass of men will, as we believe, decide that 
gambling, counterfeiting, and highway robbery are nothing, 
when compared with slavery. The counterfeiter imposes 
spurious currency on you, and the gambler, by sleight of 
hand, and perhaps unseen knavery, wins and receives your 
money, and, in either case, the products of your toil are taken, 
without giving you an equivalent ; and the Church will dis- 
cipline the latter, and the courts punish the former ; yet you 
are still tha owner of your person, left free and able-bodied, 
and as such, you can toil for more money, minister to the 
wants of your family, and discharge the duties of a freeman. 
But slavery not only takes the products of the poor man's 
toil, without giving an equivalent, but robs him of his liberty 
— the very capacity to minister to his own or others' want^ 
and converts him into a mere chattel. 

An elder in one of the churches in our State remarked, 
not long since, that he was like Dr. Rice and Dr. Junkin ; he 
thought "the wrong of slavery consisted in its abuse." A 

friend standing by said : "Father R , suppose I should 

meet you on the highway, and, by superior force, take your 
horse from you, and keep him for my own use, and, though 
Ishould leave you free to go on, acquire means with which 
to buy another, minister to the wants of your family, and 
worship your God as you should choose, yet would not the 

act be sinful ?" " Yes," said Father R . " But if, instead of 

2* 



SINFULNESS OF SLAVEHOLDING. 

taking your horse, I had taken you, and made you a slave, 
deprived you of your liberty, and the very right to possess, 
would I not have done you a greater wrong ?" "Yes," said 

Father R . "Well, then," said the friend, " is not slavery 

worse than stealing the horse ?" " Yes," said Father R . 

And there is not, perhaps, a candid man in Christendom, who 
would not admit the same. If the churches should ^ not 
fellowship him who steals his neighbor's horse, ought they to 
fellowship him who commits a worse crime ? If they would dis- 
cipline the smaller, surely they ought to discipline the greater 
crime. One of the objects of a true Church is to hold up the 
right and condemn the wrong. If they do not, they become 
the enemies of righteousness, breaking down the distinctions 
between virtue and vice, good and evil, leaving nothing to 
separate the Church from the world, save her outward ritual 
or ceremony. 

On the floor of that convention which met. last spring in 
Frankfort, to devise more efficient plans for the removal of 
slavery, even by those who did not like to admit that slavery 
is sinful in itself, the concession was made, that this is the 
feeling of a large portion of the Christian people of this land. 
It was impressively said : " there is away down in the hearts 
of a large portion of the Christian people of this land, a feel- 
ing at war with the institution of slavery. There are many 
thousand benevolent people in the State, who, I care not what 
they may say, feel in their hearts that slavery is wrong." 
Mark, slavery^ not its excrescences or its consequences — 
but slavery is regarded as wrong. Now, what is the differ- 
ence between that which is in itself wrong, and that which is 
sinful ? If wrong, it is unrighteous ; and John tells us that 
"all unrighteousness is sin." Yea, politicians themselves 
admit it. Even that man, Thomas F. Marshall, who took so 
prominent a part in crushing the freedom of the press in 
Lexington, Ky., on the memorable 1 8th ; when afterwards 
challenged by a prominent j^reacher of our State to discuss 
the question whether slavery was not sanctioned by the Word 
of God, he rephed : " I have too much respect for my God, 
to attempt to defend him from such a slander." 

Has not Mr. Turner, the perpetualist of Madison county, in 
his late speech of concessions, in the convention for framing a 
new constitution, admitted that the buying and seUing of 
slaves here is no better than piracy — the traffic on the high 
seas ? a crime punished by our Government with death. 



NEW TESTAMENT, 35 

And slavery necessarily exposes the slave to this horrible 
traflac, whether the master desire it or not. For, in case the 
master falls behind with his creditore, or dies, the law takes 
the poor slave, sells him from his wife, his children, his friends, 
into returnless bondage. And the man or woman who holds 
a slave, holds him thus exposed. Is this doing as we would 
be done by ? If not, we are sinning. And if there are non- 
slaveholders who, by their votes, sanction this traffic, they are 
guilty of the same sin. 

The Louisville Journal, speaking of slavery, says : " Slavery 
in Kentucky is a social, moral, and political evil." Now, a 
moral evil is sin. The Examiner, in its faithful vigilance for 
admissions of truth, speaking of the Jom-nal, says : " It ac- 
knowledges the sinfulness of the system — it could not help 
doing so." 

Now, when politicians and journahsts themselves freely 
admit that slavery is sinful — a truth proclaimed by our fore- 
fathers, and written in the "political faith of our nation," 
almost a hundred years since — we think Christians and Chris- 
tian ministers ought to admit it with much more readiness 
and frankness. This hair-spHtting about a thing being wrong, 
and yet not sinful, looks very much as if a man either wanted 
candor, or else was afraid an admission of truth would disclose 
an inconsistency in practice. 

Shall the Christian ministry — the men who, like Christ, 
their divine exemplar, are anointed by the Spirit of God " to 
preach deliverance to the captives, to set at hberty them that 
are bruised, to preach the acceptable year (the jubilee) of the 
Lord" — (Luke iv. 18) — shall these, the commissioned messen- 
gers of love and mercy, with Bible in hand, be the loudest 
and longest defenders of the worst tyranny the sun looks upon 1 
But to return. When we say that slavery is sinful, we do 
not mean that every master or mistress, who may sustain the 
nominal relation of master or mistress, is, in heart, or 
in the sight of God, a sinner. A master may have under his 
guardianship minors whom he has willed or recorded free, 
when such minors shall have arrived at adult age. Or a 
master may have bought a slave for the purpose of freeing 
that slave, and has not had time to obtain from the county 
court a deed or record of the slave's manumission, or time to 
convey the slave to a land or State where the slave can be 
free ; or some such relation as the cases referred to, in which 
the master or mistress holds not the fellow-l>ein^' as property. 



36 . , ' , NEW TESTAMENT. 

but only in guardianship for a time. Such persons are not 
guilty of the sin of slaveholding. They are only guardians or 
redeemers, as Nehemiah, who bought some of his brethren, in 
order to secure to them theii- freedom. But the law, the com- 
monwealth, the community of citizens, hold the purchased 
man as a slave — rob him of his liberty, his personal ownership, 
and thus create and perpetuate a relation which, as we 
have seen, is sinful. So that slavery, by whomsoever caused, 
is always sinful. The community, in making and perpetuating 
laws which deprive the innocent adult man or woman of free* 
dom, are the slaveholders and sinnei"S in such cases. But 
the man who will hunt up shadows, where the reality does 
not exist, for the purpose of evading the true and j^ractical 
issue, " whether individual, wilful, and deliberate slaveholding 
is sinful or not," shows a want of candor, as we believe, a 
want of common honesty in his investigations for truth. 



.ii!?'"'^ CP co«c,,3. 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



OODEl'^'^Daoa 



